Here is a real world example of a socialist policy and the difficulty that comes in making a reasoned decision between individual liberty and common good. The fire department in nearby Idyllwild, California has hired (no-bid) a San Diego company to make "forced-abatements" on private property within this small mountain community. The forested neighborhood is under the constant threat of wildfire - some overgrown properties increase the threat to the entire community. The San Diego company has the right to clear private property, to make whatever "improvements" they alone deem necessary and to charge the property owner for these "improvements." Failure to pay the "improvement" bill can lead to a lien on the property and the loss of a home. An army of strangers with chainsaws unilaterally "improving" my front lawn would not be welcome. A firestorm whipped up by my neighbor's unkempt yard would not be welcome. Self or society?

"The Tapeworm - A socialist perspective of the capitalist"

The McCain campaign, Fox "News" and other shills for the McCain campaign have joined in a collective spasm over the coming tide of socialism led by Barack Obama.

The flailing about began with Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber.  It is a testament to both the desperation of the McCain campaign and the bloodlust of the 24 hour news cycle the last major theme of this election has become a false debate over Socialism versus Capitalism.

It was with great anticipation that I viewed Sarah Palin's speech, given Wednesday at the Republican National Convention. I was not disappointed: the vice presidential candidate addressed real issues and presented herself as someone of conviction who would stand her ground rather than bow to the powers that be in Washington. She cleverly used her own experience (as a "community organizer") and beliefs ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery") to undermine Obama's rhetoric. All the while, she struck me as likable and a real promoter of change. Fortunately, she did much in the way of presenting the American people with her own accomplishments, something a large percentage of the news articles I have read conveniently fail to mention. (Her previous praise in the liberal media seems to be left forgotten.)

After researching her activities in government and listening to her speech, I extrapolate the following about Palin: She stands up to her opponents and promotes real reform where reform is needed. She won the gubernatorial race in Alaska on the basis of desiring to clean up government. She is a tough cookie who has opposed own party when necessary. She values reducing America's dependency on foreign oil by expanding oil and natural development at home, but at the same time, she is opposed to big oil and supports higher taxes on oil company profits. She sought to put the money gained by the government (through oil revenue) back into the hands of Alaskans. Throughout her gubernatorial stint, Palin has remained true to her word and down-to-earth. She sold a private jet, purchased with government money, on eBay. She has family serving in the military, and with her son set to deploy in a few short days she understands the general heart-felt desire to bring our troops home while at the same time aware that it would be foolish to forfeit on those grounds alone, while the Iraqi people remain in such a precarious security situation.

Two interesting articles in the Union-Tribune recently: the County Board of Supervisors wants to raise taxes to pay for increased fire protection and the City of San Diego is investigating whether it overspent on clean-up after the 2007 wildfires.

On a related issue, the state still hasn't passed a balanced budget for the current fiscal year and Governor Schwarzenegger is reportedly considering a one cent sales tax increase (temporary, yeah right) to cover the projected shortfall.

Especially in this economy, why should any voter give these leaders more money to spend? Why should the voters increase their own taxes and create a new agency of bureaucrats when the existing institutions are still trying to explain how they spent the resources at their disposal during the last crisis?

Our leaders need to prioritize their projects and do their best within their existing resources, just like every other family and business trying to make do in this economy. Admitting failure and asking for more money from the voters is not the answer.

Just listened to San Diego mayoral candidate Steve Francis be interviewed by Tom Fudge on These Days. It was interesting to hear Francis's views on what San Diego needs and how he'll improve the situation.

Sometimes it all boils down to labels. 

In high school it was all about having the correct little symbol embroidered on the shirt. Twenty-six years later, it's all about slapping the correct words on your policies. The relevance and symbolism remains the same, with the meanings of our leaders as transparent and obvious as my friend's grandmother who knew how to stitch a certain little pony. 

"No new taxes," as Steven wrote here yesterday - that's the promise of presidential candidate John McCain. As the Union-Tribune reported on Feb. 18, that's also the policy of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration. His fee proposals are detailed in Michael Gardner's article there.  

But where "taxes" won't work, re-label the money grab as "fees" and hold your head high.

Even San Diego's Pacific Beach parking board is interested in the label, or at least the revenue associated with the label. 

While one could go on for volumes trying to distinguish the difference between taxes and fees, I hauled out Black's Law Dictionary to try and make some sense of it. The definitions of the two words ran to more than three pages of tiny little dictionary type, and the closest I could get to a generalized distinction is that fees are imposed on users of privileges, where taxes are imposed equally on all.

I suppose that works if you believe that access to government is a privilege. Government these days is all about the fees, whether it's for access to the civil court system ($320 to file an unlimited civil case in San Diego), or international travel ($100 for a passport), or parking at a California state park ($4-14, depending on the park).  

But regardless of the labels, it's still government taking cash to provide a service.  I wonder if anyone running for election during this cycle will go beyond a "no new taxes" pledge and actually promise to freeze the cost of government, regardless of that label gets slapped on the source of the money. 

- -Citizen Voices blogger Chuck Hartley is an attorney who lives in Escondido.